Telling the Truth to Power

The principal job of many employees is to tell the truth to power. That's pretty simple and straightforward isn't it? Perhaps not if the truth is that management is running the business into the ground and, especially, if it's a family owned business. So it is with government; candidates for mayor, governor, and president run on platforms or policy proposals that pretty much guarantee the electorate that they know how to run or reform an agency or department. As their fantastic new policy is implemented, data begin to accumulate and occasionally ('Rarely' might be the better word as you well know, dear reader) the program just isn't working the way the leaders intended. Somebody (Now who might that be?) has the nasty task of telling the truth to power. Do they (does it) really want to hear it?

We are now in the midst of reforming the intelligence agencies of the federal government because they are considered to be unable to cope with the terrorist threat that faces the nation. That's a certainty. From the perspective of a person who is very interested in this process but who does not have the experience of working in or with one of the intelligence agencies, the reform seems long overdue as these institutions are still geared up to fight the Cold War.

But I do know something about how federal employees are dealt with as it relates to telling the truth to power. I spent most of my working life in Washington in positions close enough to power to observe the interaction between analysts and political appointees and politicians. My guarantee is that where truth meets political power there is ever tension. And that's not bad in every circumstance. That a federal education, housing, or agricultural program is not playing out as envisioned is usually not a matter of life and death for the nation. Most program managers do not have so much of themselves invested in a policy effort that they cannot bring themselves to accept the need for change even if it can't be accomplished politically.

Late night comics constantly remind us that many programs are quite funny in their application. Their jokes elicit laughs but not changes because, as we all know, inefficiencies are often built into the system in order to lubricate the gears of government. You're shocked? Please!

In the case of the intelligence agencies, however, the nation and the lives of our citizens are at stake, and there can be no doubt that we are in a life and death struggle with Islamist terrorists, regardless of the labels of their organizations. Of course, there are lots of things we might do beside doing battle with these monsters. We could capitulate - withdraw our forces from Muslim regions, drop our financial and military support for Israel, stop supporting what the terrorists call our puppet regimes in the Islamic world and otherwise bow to the pressure. We could assess the complaints of our enemies and institute reforms that appear reasonable in our approach to the Muslim world. Or we can maintain status quo in our policy and attempt to annihilate the terrorists. I don't know about you, reader, but the first and third options don't impress me. My guess is that over time, the wisdom of the American people will force our politicians into some form of the second option in concert with killing as many of these crazies as possible.

As the 2004 election approaches and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission sit as a roadblock in the middle of the electoral highway, federal candidates leap to make hay from the report of the commission. Congressional committees are racing to hold hearings. The presidential candidates are shouting their support for all or major portions of the report. The Central Intelligence Agency will or will not be central. The new Director of National Intelligence will or will not have the power to hire and fire, to transfer funds between agencies.

One thing, however, gets scant attention as the deliberations express train rolls on: how do we assure that truth gets to told to power? Having participated in hundreds if not thousands of meetings between political appointees and staff, I wonder how reform can come to human nature through moving organization boxes about? Power in governmental agencies is by its nature hierarchical; there are always people at the table with far more clout than others. Many of those powerful people, dear reader - you'll be shocked - are very self confident and do not take lightly to being told that what they are pushing is contradicted by facts, especially by a bunch of low life bureaucrats. The usual reaction in human organizations calls for them to brow beat their underlings to see the 'truth'. Sort of a 'Flogging will continue until morale improves', approach. I know that this will raise an eyebrow, but higher ranking people in government and the military think that higher graded people are, by their rank, smarter and wiser than their underlings. You don't believe that? You are so innocent.

Thus, when the Bush - Cheney Administration made up its collective mind to attack Iraq, it didn't send the Vice President to CIA headquarters to learn that we shouldn't be acting on its already made decision. The analysts were under great pressure - can you envision the pressure that a figure like Dick Cheney brings to bear of a room full of ordinary bureaucrats? - to rethink their views. People do not run for high - really high - public office to learn that they're full of baloney from a bunch of lifer slackers.

The trick in reorganizing to save the nation is to assure that truth gets told to power without the messengers being stomped. And, just as important, that just because the messengers' analysis and recommendations are not accepted the commander isn't subject to every whistle blower's dream of a great big "Gotcha!"

I think they'll just move the boxes. That's all I could do. If they do their best, it will be an improvement.

Wildbill944